Remember, folks: Gabrieli’s not-so-super sleuth was going to look at financial information provided by Deval Patrick to the State Ethics Commission that Chris Gabrieli himself has refused to make available to the public.
Tom Reilly sets the pace as the only candidate to release his income tax return.
Deval Patrick has refused to release his income tax return, but did provide a statement of financial interest that went beyond what was required by law.
But what about Professor Gabbers, he of the inquisitive student-intern? Well, despite shattering the record for personal expenditures in a gubernatorial campaign, Chris Gabrieli has provided the least amount of financial information to John and Jane Q. Public, satisfying only the minumum threshold required by law.
In a recent spate of emails that the Gabrieli campaign released to fuel a Joan Vennochi column, it was reported that, in the course of Tom Reilly and Chris Gabrieli’s discussion about possibly ticketing, Gabrieli’s wife was “balking on taxes.” Funny, Gabrieli’s wife was probably balking – and Chris Gabrieli is probably still balking – at the release of detailed personal financial information in order to avoid precisely the kind of scrutiny that his campaign is so comfortable providing to Deval Patrick’s finances. Kind of ironic, don’t you think?
Of course, all issues of fairness would be moot if each of the candidates simply made their income tax returns available to the public. In light of Gabrieli’s excessive spending and not-so-quiet inquiry into Patrick’s finances, perhaps Deval will reconsider his refusal and place Gabrieli in the uncomfortable position of being the only Democrat to hold out. . .while spending a massive amounts of his own money to win.
Until then, Chris Gabrieli is getting all the benefits of holding back his own information, while simultaneously trying to take advantage of the additional information that Deval Patrick has released.
Gee, I always thought that what was good for the goose is good for the gander. Ain’t that still the truth, Professor Gabrieli?
The Reilly camp has been lying about their relations with the Ciller Koke guy and you want to take an intern to task for this?
<
p>
And YOU’VE been playing games yourselg. I haven’t forgotten your posting comparing the Dukakis/Biden tape with the Reilly/Ciller “scandal”. You basically said that if someone of the caliber of the Duke can be forgiven, let’s forgive Tom.
<
p>
I posted reminding you that Duke fired his top three campaing operatives and if Tom was ready to do that, then he should be forgiven.
<
p>
Then all of a sudden the whole post disappeared. For a while I thought I dreamt the whole thing, but then learned the original poster can delete the entire post. Did you delete the entire post?
First of all, I don’t think my credibility is the issue here, although you may wish to make it a convenient diversion. In fact, I’m confident that many will read this diary and find my reasoning highly credible. But if you want to go that route, by all means. . .I’ll stand by my work.
<
p>
Second, I am hardly taking an “intern to task,” since Gabrieli’s campaign spokesman “freely admitted the document was obtained for campaign purposes.” Do you think he meandered over there on his own, Frank?
<
p>
Third, if you have any evidence that the Reilly camp has been lying about their relations with Killer Coke, please feel free to share it. Otherwise, it’s just an empty statement.
<
p>
Finally, you are also correct: I wrote and then deleted a Reilly/Dukakis comparison. I intended to save it as a draft, though better of the comparison because of some obvious differences (e.g. the Reilly camp merely had internal discussions vs. the Dukakis camp authorizing the production and release of the Biden tape), discovered that I had posted it, and then junked it. I’m sorry, did I commit some kind of crime?
One thing I noticed last night, watching all the ads on each website, was that Chris was the only one to mention the other primary candidates. Granted, it’s only once, and he didn’t do it by name. But it was at the top of the ad, which I found interesting. In the grand scheme of things, is this a small blip or a sign of things to come?
<
p>
Part of me would just as soon openly acknowledge that the campaigns are now doing comparative stuff — better to have it out in the open than all this cloak-and-dagger business.
The issue isn’t the research. That’s part of a campaign. The issue isn’t even that Gabrieli sent an intern over to look at a public document – after all, it’s public.
<
p>
The irony is that Gabrieli is researching financial information that he himself won’t share. That is my point.
Hey Mav,
<
p>
I noticed that piece as well. I could also not help but notice the irony in that report. As you noted, David Wedge opened the article hitting a Gabrieli intern for not specifically identifying “the person or organization on whose behalf you are obtaining this report”. After receiving a response from the Gabrieli team that perhaps the intern did not understand the question, Wedge wrote – as you noted – “Funny, seems pretty clear to us”.
<
p>
While one could question if this story needs to be the lead in any story – was Wedge trying to imply that Gabrieli and his team authorized this lack of identification as opposed to an “honest” mistake by what I would guess is an inexperienced intern – what I found even more interesting was who and what he placed under the “Who’s Hot” section. He showed Deval Patrick’s picture and wrote “Deval’s in the details and polls by both CBS4 and Channel 7 show him pulling away from the pack”. What was he looking at? The CBS4 poll had it 34% Deval Patrick, 30% Chris Gabrieli, and 30% Tom Reilly. That lead is less than it was in the previous poll taken by CBS4 last month. Worse, the Channel 7 poll had it 32% Gabrieli, 24% Patrick, and 20% Reilly. Last month Patrick was in first in this poll. Now Gabrieli is in the lead at the far edge of the margin of error in the Channel 7 poll. How is that pulling ahead for Patrick?
<
p>
I don’t know if Wedge has a preference in this race and I hope this was simply an honest mistake, but in any event his article appears to be as biased as it comes. His error is not insignificant at this late stage since it occurs in the Sunday paper and does not convey that it is probably Gabrieli with the momentum – at least based upon the Channel 7 poll results he referenced. Perhaps Wedge did not “understand” the polls/#s, but “funny, seems pretty clear to us”. Perhaps a course in remedial math is needed for Mr. Wedge.
and what I was driving at, is the irony that Gabrieli is researching financial information that he himself won’t share.
<
p>
Obviously the Gabrieli campaign has its version of the story and it’s plausible. (Although, in all honesty, SSG, do you really think the intern thought that he was there on behalf of Boston College?) Basically, the reader is left to ponder between the version of a confused intern, who was sent by the campaign, and the appearance of being sly. That part of the story is up for grabs, no doubt.
<
p>
However, the irony is still there.
Do we know specifically what the intern was looking for? Given what I outlined above, Mr. Wedge’s accuracy in reporting and mastery of details is certainly in question. Until I see more accurate reporting of basic facts – like the reporting of poll results – from him, I can’t place too much stock in what he reports in the Herald.
SSG, while we do not know what aspect of Deval Patrick’s financial disclosures that the intern was obtaining (maybe some, maybe all), we do know for a fact that Deval Patrick hs made more information available.
<
p>
So, we can speculate as to whether the intern purposely or mistakenly provided the wrong organization and we can speculate about what kind of financial information the intern was obtaining for the campaign, but the fact that the Gabrieli campaign was doing opposition research on a body of available financial information that exceeds what he himself has been willing to share is beyond debate.
<
p>
Therein lies the irony.
Conveniently overlooked is the subsequent Globe poll showing Patrick with a convincing lead.
<
p>
One blip does not a summer make.
or did their front page have it 31% Patrick, 30% Gabrieli, and 27% Reilly? That’s convincing? Your assumption on where the undecideds go is a slight stretch, so I will stick with what the poll reported.
<
p>
By the way, did you notice the dates of the Globe poll? They were 8/18 to 8/23, which means that the Globe sat on the poll for a few days before releasing the results. These dates overlap with much of the Ch. 7//Suffolk poll, which means that it is really not a true subsequent poll. Both are relatively ancient history in this day and age of rolling 3-day polls.
<
p>
If we assume both the Suffolk and Globe polls have roughly +/-4% to 5% for margin of error – which I think they were; I do not have them in front of me at this moment – then they are both plausible polling results despite differences in assumptions, methodologies, and tallies.
<
p>
As I have said before, the only poll that really matters will take place in three weeks, so I am past both polls already. My point in the post was to highlight the inaccurate reporting of Mr.Wedge as to the Suffolk poll’s actual results.
You really need to stop with the tax return thing. It is really getting so old. If Tom Reilly thinks the financial disclosure forms should require more information, maybe he should have done something about it before now. Oh, but then that would have taken some leadership skills, and this hoha about nothing is so much easier to do.
<
p>
The concern about a spouse’s privacy rights are legititmate; she is not running for office. Why should’t she be able to say no to releasing her tax return information? I think the Reilly camp is having trouble understanding that because most political spouses are women and they apparently still think of wives as appendages to their husbands.
<
p>
As for whether the college kid was being deceitful for putting down Boston College instead of the Gabrielli campaign, give me a break. The kid is a kid, not a political operative. And trying to impute something bad from what the kid did to the Gabrielli campaigns is just nonsense.
<
p>
At least you admitted that Deval Patrick has released more information than he was required to do.
<
p>
Now why not focus on why you think Tom Reilly should be Governor, because if this is all you got…
<
p>
Isn’t that what the GOP says on Katrina and Iraq? Okay, a bit flippant, and the issues are not on the same scale. However, that argument still stinks in a campaign age where the St. Fleur morass is treated by many as hot news .
<
p>
I’m not going down the road of giving you the many reasons Reilly should be governor, as it would be similar to the experience explaining his record as AG to you. Talk about debate Calvinball Though I will through in my admiration that most of his ads take on Romney and Healey directly, carrying the attack to them. If Reilly loses, he will have done more in his campaigning to build up brand Democrat (as opposed to just brand Reilly) than any other candidate. That is an example of service.
<
p>
And the “kid being a kid” line is a weak defense. It’s not like Gabrieli is going to send in David Howard (hi David!) for this sort of stuff. You seem to say he’s looking for information about Deval that is of use to Gabrieli. Talk about plausible deniability. Or he doesn’t understand the question? I don’t think people that stupid get that far at BC.
<
p>
Face it, Gabrieli tried to sneak around and got caught. While I’m not that excised about non-disclosure, declaring it a non-issue doesn’t work.
The reference to “debate Calvinball” I think more fittingly applies to the repetitive use of the “I want tax returns” screech, no matter what the discussion is about. Reilly “has done more in his campaign to build up brand Democrat?!!” Have you asked any unenrolled voters about that? (After all, they seem to be the ones who really decide elections in this state.) Let’s see, the selection of Marie St. Fleur as Lieutenant Governor without checking her tax return situation comes to mind, particularly since you mentioned it. Now, do you think that whole story improved the brand or hurt the brand?
..and you’re doin’ some darn fine cherry-pickin’
<
p>
The St. Fleur thing hurt Reilly as Reilly, not Reilly as a Democrat. Obviously was a train wreck. What I’m talking about is throughout his campaign, in television ads, campaign speeches, and appearances, Reilly’s focus has squarely been on Kerry Healey, or if you prefer, Healey/Romney/Bush. That is more than Gabrieli (who leads off his most recent video on his website negatively mentioning ‘his opponents’).
<
p>
Deval is kind of a wash — he’s building up his own image in a positive way (kudos to him), mentions on his signs and ads that he is a Democrat (kudos — wish Chris and Tom would follow suit), but doesn’t mention Healey in his stuff. Even that fawning interview / Barbara Walters special doesn’t mention Healey once. C’mon Deval — show us you’re hearing up for the playoffs!
<
p>
So far, Gabrieli has slightly besmirched fellow Democrats, Deval has slightly helped them. Reilly has done his best to take a chunk out of Healey. Another reason I’m proud of Reilly.
<
p>
(You can come back with the undercover attack stuff in fairness, the Killer Coke stuff, Gabrieli’s latest attempt at cloak-and-dagger research, etc. As much fun as that stuff is for us, the average voter neither knows nor cares.)
Sabutai, “Debate Calvinball” is a perfect description of that diary and its ensuing comments! Question posed. Question answered. New questions posed. New questions answered. Answers recast by the questioner – for what purpose? To apparently suggest that many of Tom Reilly’s accomplishments included additional parties, such as state and federal agencies – as though an ability to work with stakeholders and leverage intergovernmental resources is somehow not what we would want in a Governor!
<
p>
Debate Calvinball. . .priceless.
would be proud.
First, I am completely entitled to my own opinion that all candidates for the highest office in our state should make their sources of income public. In fact, it is a position that was, until recently, shared by all contemporary Democratic and Republican candidates for Massachusetts Governor – that is, before Mitt Romney and Kerry Healey set a new tradition that has been followed by Chris Gabrieli and Deval Patrick. Patrick, however, chose to disclose additional fincancial information, which is a step closer to full disclosure. Chris Gabrieli has not, but apparently his campaign believes that reading up on the additional information of others represents a valid campaign purpose.
<
p>
(In fact, I would argue that financial disclosure with all of its potential value for exposing potential conflicts is far more relevant than, say, your interest in Why Do The Reillys Rent? However, that is your concern and this is one of mine.)
<
p>
Second, who said that a candidate’s spouse shouldn’t have a say in the release of the couple’s financial information? I certainly didn’t. According to you, the Reilly camp has suggested that is the case as part of an alleged misogynistic viewpoint, but there is no basis for your argument. In short, you made that part up.
<
p>
Third, as my diary makes clear, whether the intern was deceitful was irrelevant. Personally, I could care less and I do not focus on the point, although you do to great exaggeration of my diary. The fact is that the Gabrieli campaign was researching Patrick’s finances and, ironically, Gabrieli will not make the same level of information public. That was, and remains, my point.
<
p>
Fourth, in response to your final statement, Tom Reilly has provided more leadership for this state than either of his opponents. That is my opinion and I won’t give it a rest.
I apologize if I misunderstood the meaning of your posting. There was just so much other stuff contained in it besides the little bit about the young intern’s mistake and the irony of his assigned task. But I must repond to some of your additional comments.
<
p>
My question about the Reilly’s renting was really just that, a question, not really a concern. I found it curious that he and his wife have been renters for over 35 years and I thought someone contributing to this blog may know the answer. Yes, it was somewhat frivolous and not crucial to deciding whether Tom Reilly would make a good governor overseeing the fiscal health of the Commonwealth, but I did not belabor it beyond my initial shout out.
<
p>
As for your reference to misogyny, I did not say or imply that Tom Reilly had a “misogynist viewpoint.” (But I find it curious that you used those terms,) I do think blowing off the claim by a candidate’s spouse that her tax information be kept private as much ado about nothing is ignoring her right to privacy and the fact that she should have a say in protecting that right. I also think the claim to privacy would be taken more seriously if more spouses were men. That is not claiming that Tom Reilly is misogynist, by any stretch of the imagination (although I guess one could infer that he has a slightly old-fashioned view of a wife’s role).
Actually, the word I had in mind was “chauvinistic.” (I realized this morning that misogynistic was not the corect term.) You were imputing a chauvinistic viewpoint on Tom Reilly and his campaign. Judging by this comment (“although I guess one could infer that he has a slightly old-fashioned view of a wife’s role”), you still are, which is regrettably inconsistent with any record of fact.
<
p>
Nobody has “blown off” Mrs. Gabrieli’s concern. In fact, that is either another misreading or misrepresentation on your part. Whether the spouse is a man or a woman, it is clearly ironic that a candidate who is personally reluctant to disclose detailed financial information believes that there is a valid campaign purpose in investigating the available detailed financial information of another candidate.
Actually, I did not mean chauvinistic either. (I have not heard that word in a while.) I meant ezactly what I said; it reflects an old-fashion view….. chauvinism is something entirely different.
exactly reflects an old-fashioned view? You have yet to raise a fact to support any term.
the 30 second/4 column inch, pick a minor and simplistic issue, and beat it to death garbage.
<
p>
The audience here at BMG is more educated, more interested, and more nuanced about the issues. Newsflash: personal financial information and square footage of home have nothing to do with leadership styles, experiences, or policy directives.
while I have written on the issue of finacial disclosure before – in fact, it was the subject of my very first BMG post in April – the subject of this post is different.
<
p>
I simply find it ironic that the Gabrieli campaign, which has steadfastly refused to divulge more than the minimum level of financial information, is investigating the additional financial information provided by Deval Patrick, which includes more than the bare minimum.
<
p>
If it is so unimportant, which ostensibly is why Chris Gabrieli refuses to release his tax return, then why is the Gabrieli camp sending an intern over to obtain Deval Patrick’s filings? I’m simply pointing out the hypocricy -don’t shoot the messenger.
The sad part about this whole thing is that we require this information be “Public” and then we keep tabs of exactly who requests the information and for what purpose. Then pooor little interns get bludgeoned to death on blogs for requesting the information. Really, this information should be given out and we should not be keeping track of who has requested the information. Just another way for the people in power to strong arm and intimidate anyone that asks any questions of the “annointed” powers that be!
<
p>
IT IS PUBLIC INFORMATION. But we make that public information very difficult to get.
If it’s public, it should be available on the Internet.
The financial disclosures should be submitted to the Ethics Commission, scanned, and uploaded to a site as a PDF. If it’s public, it’s public.
<
p>
I’m not sure the intern has been bludgeoned, however. I don’t think he did anything wrong per se. That was the Herald’s focus, not mine. As my diary notes, it was the irony of the request for documents that Gabrieli himself won’t provide that struck me, rather than the intern’s intent.
At last đŸ˜‰
of a classic scene from “Brain Candy,” a Kids in the Hall movie.
<
p>
Two characters are disagreeing with one another when one suddenly stops and interjects, “But surely you would agree that Paris is the capitol of France, wouldn’t you?” The second character responds, “Yes,” to which the questioner quickly concludes, “Great, then we are in agreement!”
<
p>
Believe me, it plays out better on screne, but you get the gist.